The biggest military victories of the 21st century didn't look like people expected. Consider Russia's seizure of Crimea from Ukraine, which relied upon not fighter jets or advanced warships but crafty public relations, Special Forces, and a proxy army.

How did Russian President Vladimir Putin do it? He started with outreach to aggrieved Russian-speaking people in Crimea, posing them as victims of the crooked Ukrainian government. Russian state media and social media flooded the region and the world with propaganda. Putin then encouraged militias to form. They seized an airport, military bases, and government buildings. A parliamentary vote declared Crimea would secede from Ukraine. A referendum, days later, voted the region to become part of Russia.

It was a new kind of invasion, and it worked.

"Once the green men are there, a revolution happens quickly."

Russian armored personnel carriers reported to be heading to Simferopol of Crimea, Ukraine on February 28, 2014.Bulent Doruk/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Experts have begun to call these tactics "non-linear," "unconventional," or "information warfare." But the catchphrase getting the most traction is "hybrid war." We've seen Russia use it to grab land in Crimea, but make no mistake, this is not just an eastern European phenomenon. It could happen anywhere, including the United States.

To understand the confusing modern "hybrid" battlefield, it's helpful to place these new tactics on familiar territory. A great example of fiction informing fact is 1984's Red Dawn, in which writer/director John Milius made viewers understand the nature of guerrilla warfare via an alternate history in which Cuban and Soviet forces invaded the USA. The hypothetical scenario I'm laying out below should be considered with the same amount of skepticism—it's an extreme hypothetical, but it serves to explain the concept. All the details here are fictional, but the shadowy strategies of 21st century hybrid warfare are very real.1) Find a Proxy

Let's say a Mexican cartel wanted to ensure its routes through a tightened U.S. border remain open. The cartel is well armed but can't out-muscle the United States military, so a direct invasion is out of the question. There is no political recourse since we're talking about an outlaw cartel and not a nation-state. But the cartel could wage a campaign using elements of hybrid warfare to gain an advantage.

It doesn't require a nation to wage a hybrid war, and criminal organizations will be drawn to hybrid warfare because it preserves anonymity. That means the first step is to find a sympathetic group on the ground to serve as a proxy. Without one, a group waging hybrid war can't take and seize terrain. (Turf isn't always the objective, but in our scenario it is.)

A member of Ukraine's disbanded elite Berkut riot police force aims his Klashnikov rifle at a checkpoint under a Russian national (L) and Russian naval (R) flags on a highway that connect Black Sea Crimea peninsula to mainland Ukraine near the city of ArmViktor Drachev/AFP/Getty Images

In Crimea, Ukrainians who spoke Russian served as the rallying point for an annexation. The United States has its own groups of people who feel trapped in the middle. Border tensions have been fueling discontent between the U.S. government and the Tohono O'odham nation, a Native American group whose land straddles the Mexican border. On one side, contraband smugglers make the area unstable and tempt locals to become outlaws. On the other side, fences, checkpoints, and other law enforcement efforts have disrupted the tribe's sovereignty and ability to do business.Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Earlier this year, a European researcher named Anton Shekhovtsov outlined some of the conditions needed for a hybrid war to work. One condition was introducing forces that are culturally transparent, so they "so they do not stand out as 'aliens' and, thus, compromise the operation." In Crimea that meant ethnic Russians, but in the multicultural stewpot of the United States, language and culture mean less. What matters more is the ability to infiltrate the levers of control over, and that means owning property, sponsoring local candidates and tools of communication, which the cartel can do with its ample money and legitimate business connections.

Each of these elements could be used when it comes time to drive a wedge between the tribe and the United States government.2) Win Phase Zero

Propaganda was around long before Sun Tzu wrote about the need to sap an enemy's morale to win wars. But modern media—fast moving, fractured, and pervasive—has made the home front a primary target in hybrid war.

After finishing the referendum in Crimea, Pro-Russian people make celebrations at Lenin Square in Simferepol, Ukraine.Getty

In the real world, the Tohono O'odham nation is already abuzz over plenty of real, legitimate concerns. Local blogs drive passions with reports of fences cutting through sacred lands, of businesses losing money because they can't freely move goods, of religious artifacts taken during Border Patrol arrests. In our fictional scenario, some creative rumor-mongering amplifies the anger.

Here's where the concept of cyberwar comes into sharp focus. Mexican cartels can hire freelance hackers to conduct industrial espionage operations that benefit cartel-friendly businesses by stealing details on bids or digging up trade secrets. Mercenary hackers from anywhere in the world can dig up dirt and blackmail moderate political voices. Websites with opposing views can be hacked and disrupted. Doctored videos and photos can spread discontent, with compromised local media eager to tout them. Politicians not used to hardball are quickly marginalized as the cartel threatens to kill them or their families.

The powder keg is ready for a spark.

This is the digital equivalent of using an artillery barrage to soften up the defender's ability to resist. "Weakening the enemy's will through nonmilitary measures will pay large dividends in the long-run," writes Nicholas Fedyk, project associate at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs in the Small War Journal.

Let's take this scenario full Crimea. Stoked by this propaganda, the tribe's confrontations and protests against the Border Patrol escalate as moderate politicians lose influence. Cartel-controlled media begin talk of a referendum on self-governance—a divorce from both the United States and Mexico.

The powder keg is ready for a spark. And that's when the little green men show up.3) Introduce the Little Green Men

When the Russian special operations forces entered Crimea, they hid among local militia groups. They wore no insignia, but offered weapons, training, and secure communications equipment. These paramilitary units were dubbed "little green men." They were swift, effective and most of all, deniable—since they were not official Russian forces, Putin could have denied knowledge of their activities if necessary. As NATO General Philip Breedlove told a German publication in 2014: "Once the green men are there, a revolution happens quickly."

Little green men put real teeth behind the movement. In our scenario, the cartel backs Native American radical groups with experienced gunmen and former Mexican military officers who can backstop these proxies with sophisticated communication gear and heavy weapons. Some of the weapons are aimed at dissenters inside the tribe, while others threaten the Border Patrol and National Guard.

Squads of cartel killers assassinate some border patrol agents and claim credit on behalf of the tribe, putting both sides on edge and bringing U.S. military attention in the form of the National Guard. This stokes emotions on the eve of the referendum, perhaps swinging the vote toward independence. If not, the cartels rig it. The outcome is preordained either way.4) Spark a Crisis and Take Control

When the vote of separation from the U.S. and Mexican governments succeeds, armed squads take over the highways and bridges. Border Patrol, local police, and National Guardsmen find their radios jammed, websites knocked out by DDoS attacks, and vital highways blocked by abandoned, booby-trapped trucks.

In a hybrid war, threats are even better than actions.

The cartel has invested and smuggled military grade equipment to its forces, and they wield shoulder-fired missiles that can shoot down helicopters. A traditional general, interested in causing enemy casualties, would keep this hardware a secret until it was time to surprise an enemy. But in a hybrid war, threats are even better than actions. This is the power of information—a single Youtube video can ground a fleet of the world's most advanced reconnaissance and attack helicopters.

The independent nation can now declare its right to self-defense in attacking any other government troops violating its turf. The Russian and Chinese, delighted with this knock to American hegemony, backs the claim at the United Nations.

People celebrate the first anniversary of the signing of the decree on the annexation of the Crimea by the Russian Federation, on March 18, 2015 in Sevastopol, Crimea.Getty Alexander Aksakov

The cartel's revolution has succeeded. Like ISIS, it now owns territory and can impose governmental means of control, like laws, taxes, and jail sentences. It has transformed from a transnational crime syndicate to something like a nation. Smugglers now operate with impunity, weakly monitored by the cartel-beholden government. The puppet ruling party soon enacts a zero-extradition policy and few legal controls over its permissive banking system. It's like a little Cayman Islands right along the border. The Tohono O'odham—very of few of whom had to be complicit in this movement for it to succeed—finds themselves in a nation run by a criminal organization.21st Century Total War

The tactics and techniques outlined in this hypothetical scenario may seem far-fetched, sure. But people in Crimea and Ukraine just watched more outlandish power grabs succeed even as NATO, Europe, and the United States looked on.

It was a new kind of invasion, and it worked.

The reality of hybrid warfare is a stark reminder to anyone who thinks the idea of total war has vanished in the glare of the information age. Instead of carpet bombing cities and launching land-grab invasions, the 21st century's version of total war is more subtle, effective, and exportable.

Don't believe it could happen here? Take a look at what's happening with claims of Russian hacking and its impact on the U.S. election. Consider the targets of Anna Chapman and other Russian spy rings in America. Ponder the industrial espionage aimed at defense firms and federal agencies. For all we know, the hybrid war against the United States may have already begun.

"Allahu Akbar" (Arabic: الله أكبر) is an Islamic phrase, called Takbir in Arabic, meaning "God is greater" or "God is [the] greatest". Allahu Akbar or Allahu Ekber and similar variants may also refer to: Allahu Akbar (anthem), the national anthem of Libya from 1969 to 2011.

In a scene from what the current administration would want us to think is the "new normal", we have this:

"A man dressed in a private security uniform and making reference to Allah, entered a St. Cloud Minnesota mall Saturday night and stabbed eight people before being shot dead by an off duty police officer."

...and this:

"A man who was killed after stabbing eight people Saturday night inside a Minnesota mall was “a soldier of the Islamic State,” an ISIS-linked news agency said Sunday morning."

And this happens almost simultaneously with bombs in New York that are reminiscent of the Boston Marathon bombings that so many Americans seem to have already forgotten about. We live in a time of war and it would be foolish of us to forget that for a moment, or to forget who the unannounced enemy happens to be. The terrorists all have a common thread, a cultural, political, and religious ideology that connects them regardless of where they were born, what passport they hold or what language they speak. I am still astounded at law enforcement's reluctance to even speak of the common thread. Its like the Vikings in The Thirteenth Warrior refusing to speak the name of the "Wendol", as if the name remains unspoken, the monster will not exist.In short order, the identity of the Islamic Terrorist named by ISIS will be known, as well as who planted the bombs in New York...and you will all be able to name the monster for yourselves. In the meantime - lessons to learn.

1). The Crossroads Mall I am told is posted as a Gun Free Zone. from their website, it mentions - "No firearms or illegal weapons". Well that is all very nice, but that didn't seem to stop the terrorist, so since the other side refuses to obey the rules, so shall we refuse to obey such silly rules. Carry your weapons everywhere...well concealed but ready at hand. Ignore the sign. The sign will not protect you...that much is clear.

2). Profile everyone that comes near you, regardless of where you are and what uniform they are wearing. The terrorist was a security guard. And I have been to Minnesota. I will bet that the security guard/terrorist was a Somali immigrant. I am not certain of this, but I am making an educated guess based on prior training and collective national experience. We will see.

3). Along with visual profiling, look at what they have in their hands...and why. I cannot imagine that nobody saw the Somali security guard loping around the mall with a knife in his hand. If you are in a Minnesota Mall and a man that fits the national collective profile of the insurgency culture walks up to you with a knife in his hand and asks what religion you are, I think that you are justified in being suspicious without considering yourself as a deplorable racist.

4). Learn how to fight the knife. A hint...the best answer is not a martial arts technique. More to follow as we get information.

UPDATE:

He was Dahir Adan, 22, born in Africa and brought here 15 years ago. The head of Minnesota CAIR expressed fears of a "potential for backlash," and Democrat Gov. Mark Dayton called for "religious and racial tolerance."

I know exactly where in Elizabeth this is just from this small photo. It is called the "arch" and is just under the railroad tracks. I used to walk under it every day going home from high school.There used to be a great record store on that block. Remember those? I think the pizza store is still there. A lot of homeless hang out (or at least used to) just across the street along the alley way like street next to tracks.

I was going to post it on my facebook account, but thought better of it due to the fact that I have friends and coworkers from Africa and Mexico on my page and didn't want to hurt their feelings or give them the wrong idea. I also have to say, that at work, I have often seen agents from the National Institution of Migration working at several checkpoints throughout the country and they are VERY proactive. Still, this is happening.

Having said that, it cannot be ignored, that here in Mexico, there have been 7000 African immigrants admitted legally, the majority of which, went DIRECTLY to the border, attempting to enter the United States.

Mexico is now in a quandary as to what to do with them. Why they were admitted, I have no idea, and bear in mind, that doesn't count the Syrian immigrants allowed refuge here as well.

Basically, Mexico is granting the transit visas to cross Mexico and enter the States because the Africans are claiming that they have a job or relatives awaiting them in the States. Still others, are crossing into Mexico illegally, some of whom are detained.

It needs to be mentioned that, you can walk right into the United States from Mexico, but... that you'll have to pay your coyote guide (about 20-30 thousand pesos), and nowadays you have to pay the Zetas another 10,000 pesos at certain points they have set up, or they'll kill you? If you know how to avoid their checkpoints, you can get in for free, but if you try to avoid them and are caught, it's the last thing you will ever do. (All of this is a separate subject, but it bears mentioning due to the fact, that people are entering Mexico, and if refused entry legally *which the Africans have been,* they can still enter one of two ways - guided or taking their chances on foot).

I was going to post it on my facebook account, but thought better of it due to the fact that I have friends and coworkers from Africa and Mexico on my page and didn't want to hurt their feelings or give them the wrong idea. I also have to say, that at work, I have often seen agents from the National Institution of Migration working at several checkpoints throughout the country and they are VERY proactive. Still, this is happening.

Having said that, it cannot be ignored, that here in Mexico, there have been 7000 African immigrants admitted legally, the majority of which, went DIRECTLY to the border, attempting to enter the United States.

Mexico is now in a quandary as to what to do with them. Why they were admitted, I have no idea, and bear in mind, that doesn't count the Syrian immigrants allowed refuge here as well.

Basically, Mexico is granting the transit visas to cross Mexico and enter the States because the Africans are claiming that they have a job or relatives awaiting them in the States. Still others, are crossing into Mexico illegally, some of whom are detained.

It needs to be mentioned that, you can walk right into the United States from Mexico, but... that you'll have to pay your coyote guide (about 20-30 thousand pesos), and nowadays you have to pay the Zetas another 10,000 pesos at certain points they have set up, or they'll kill you? If you know how to avoid their checkpoints, you can get in for free, but if you try to avoid them and are caught, it's the last thing you will ever do. (All of this is a separate subject, but it bears mentioning due to the fact, that people are entering Mexico, and if refused entry legally *which the Africans have been,* they can still enter one of two ways - guided or taking their chances on foot).

This is a great post, important point. There is an age-old, political economic disagreement about the value of new immigrants, needed for labor and age demographics, but pushing down wages for low income workers. The WSJ view against Buchanan, Perot, Trump, etc. This may be irreconcilable, but the idea that we need to control our borders and entries in a time of international terrorism is not.

I was going to post it on my facebook account, but thought better of it due to the fact that I have friends and coworkers from Africa and Mexico on my page and didn't want to hurt their feelings or give them the wrong idea. I also have to say, that at work, I have often seen agents from the National Institution of Migration working at several checkpoints throughout the country and they are VERY proactive. Still, this is happening.

Having said that, it cannot be ignored, that here in Mexico, there have been 7000 African immigrants admitted legally, the majority of which, went DIRECTLY to the border, attempting to enter the United States.

Mexico is now in a quandary as to what to do with them. Why they were admitted, I have no idea, and bear in mind, that doesn't count the Syrian immigrants allowed refuge here as well.

Basically, Mexico is granting the transit visas to cross Mexico and enter the States because the Africans are claiming that they have a job or relatives awaiting them in the States. Still others, are crossing into Mexico illegally, some of whom are detained.

It needs to be mentioned that, you can walk right into the United States from Mexico, but... that you'll have to pay your coyote guide (about 20-30 thousand pesos), and nowadays you have to pay the Zetas another 10,000 pesos at certain points they have set up, or they'll kill you? If you know how to avoid their checkpoints, you can get in for free, but if you try to avoid them and are caught, it's the last thing you will ever do. (All of this is a separate subject, but it bears mentioning due to the fact, that people are entering Mexico, and if refused entry legally *which the Africans have been,* they can still enter one of two ways - guided or taking their chances on foot).

This is a great post, important point. There is an age-old, political economic disagreement about the value of new immigrants, needed for labor and age demographics, but pushing down wages for low income workers. The WSJ view against Buchanan, Perot, Trump, etc. This may be irreconcilable, but the idea that we need to control our borders and entries in a time of international terrorism is not.

I know that there have been stories of ISIS operating in Mexico, that come from an unconfirmed "confidential informant" from either the DEA or ATF.

I have allegiances to Mexico for a couple reasons, but also am interested in the well being of my native country.

What I can say without reserve, is that Mexico is not a kind country to outsiders. Is it possible that agents of ISIS could operate here by paying off cartels? It is. It's more likely though, that the cartels don't want anything interrupting their established business and from a government perspective, we are very aggressive with anyone that breaks laws.

ISIS cells operating here in Mexico? I haven't seen a single substantiated instance of it, not even one, nor have I heard of any, other than the one mentioned by the confidential informant.

One tweet that perfectly sums up being a New Yorker during a terror scareby Tim Donnelly1 Comment

Screen Shot 2016-09-19 at 1.07.14 PMVia, referencing this news story from DNAinfo about how the NY/NJ bombers were thwarted by thieves who pounced on the unattended bags. This piece of news will leave you with a very “well, huh!” feeling about living in New York while the rest of the country panics that we’re under attack from ISIS. This city may at times be a cesspool of thieves, con artists and villainy. But it’s our cesspool. Crime isn’t good, but no real New Yorker would leave their bag unattended anywhere, for exactly this reason.

As a law enforcement source told DNAinfo: “Who in this world finds a pressure cooker with a phone and just takes the bag?”

Be careful out there and be good to each other, however you process your feelings of safety and vigilance. Life goes on in New York, for now.

I've driven through this reservation. Very untouched by modern hands-- one does not see even telephone wires,no light pollution at night. VERY low population density. Prairie dogs, coyotes, hawks, eagles, etc abound.

I've driven through this reservation. Very untouched by modern hands-- one does not see even telephone wires,no light pollution at night. VERY low population density. Prairie dogs, coyotes, hawks, eagles, etc abound.

Tribal sovereignty doesn't allow for preventing the international border from being secured.

Bill Would Delay Expanded Digital Search Powers for FBI(November 17, 2016)US Senators have introduced a bill that would delay an update to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that grants the FBI extended powers to search computers in multiple US jurisdictions. The change is scheduled to go into effect on December 1, 2016. The legislation would freeze the impending rule change until July 1, 2017.

A historical point which I have referenced more than once around here:

". . .During the Cold War, American law denied entry to the United States to any alien who wrote, published, or advocated “the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship.” We continue to maintain an escalating series of ideological litmus tests for visa recipients and green-card holders. We can and should expand those tests to deny entry to any visitor or immigrant who advocates the doctrines or ideas of ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and any other recognized terrorist organization — including by expressing support on social media for the goals, theology, politics, or leadership of those organizations. Indeed, the list should expand beyond known terrorists so that we’d exclude those who support the doctrines or ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood or the Iranian Revolution. Beyond this basic test, it is simply not in America’s national interest to admit refugees, visitors, or other immigrants from zones of jihadist activity unless they have a demonstrable record of loyalty to or cooperation with the United States or its allies. When we know that our enemy is seeking to infiltrate and indoctrinate these specific populations (and has greatest access to these populations), the burden of proof for immigration or entry should be squarely placed on the immigrant. If refugees need our aid, we should aid them in the Middle East. , , ,"

2,500 more of these are on the way. And that's just the beginning.2,500 more of these are on the way. And that’s just the beginning.

While the eyes of most interested in national security are on the excellent appointment of USMC Gen. James Mattis — and it’s worth it just to see the egg on hack reporter Colin Clark’s face for a bullshit report based on an “anonymous source” who probably didn’t exist, or whom he misrepresented — a more serious national security event just happened.

The lame duck “security” establishment is rushing “refugees” from jihad exporting nations to the United States — and the State Department is treating their names, points of origin, and destinations as classified information.

You know, like they didn’t do with their actual classified information, which is why a mountain of it is on Wikileaks, and whatever isn’t there is on servers in the Lubyanka. Fox:

In an unprecedented move, the U.S. State Department has classified details on refugees to be resettled in America via a secret deal made with Australia. The bi-lateral agreement, which Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called a “one-off,” involves 2,465 people currently being held in Papua New Guinea and Nauru who will now be transferred onto U.S. soil.

“This is a backroom deal, wheeling and dealing with another country’s refugee problem,” Center for Immigration Studies fellow Don Barnett told FoxNews.com. “I don’t believe for a moment it’s a one-time deal. That’s for public consumption.”Congress has asked Jeh Johnson (nominally Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security) about the jihadi influx, and his response has been to stonewall. The security of jihadis is a greater concern of his than the security of this nation.

The 2,465 mohammed-worshippers were vetted by Australia and deemed (1) not admissible as refugees and (2) not admissible at any rate due to terrorism ties or histories, or complete absence of any documented history, suggesting that some of them are ringers using cover names.

Officials, however, did confirm countries of origin to be Iran, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and Sudan, as well as some deemed “stateless.”Every single one of those nations is a net producer and exporter of terrorists, although Sri Lanka terrorism seems to be in remission at the moment. Still, the principal reason a refugee would free Sri Lanka is due to connection to the crushed Tamil separatist movement, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

The stateless are people who have been expelled from their home nations, primarily because their loyalty is elsewhere, for example, to a transnational pseudo-religious terrorist movement.

While this is hitting the mainstream media (well, some of the mainstream media) cold, Refugee Resettlement Watch was on it last month, before it actually happened. (She’s also got pictures of those fine “refugees” burning their camp down in a fit of inchoate anger in 2013).

In two related stories at the New York Times, one revels in the collapse of the immigration courts under lawyers’ obstruction and over a half-million backed-up deportation cases, and another tries to tell the story of the OSU jihadi, but can’t figure out why he did it.

It’s the Islam, stupid. We don’t need, and we can’t afford, even one more Somali. The Times says the attack was no big deal because the 11 people slashed by the attacker (and the one hit by police friendly fire) are not going to die. If the rest of these people did what the “assimilated, happy” “refugee” did in Columbus, then 27,115 people will be hospitalized with serious wounds. It’s not like we have any shortage of murderous refugees, violent immigrants and criminal alien mayhem already.

Evidence being used against him in the Department of Homeland Security's effort to deport him is the product of torture and is not credible, a Hamas-connected imam testified Tuesday in a Newark, N.J. immigration court.

Mohammad Qatanani is imam at the Islamic Center of Passaic County. Immigration officials have been fighting to deport him since 2006, alleging he failed to disclose connections with Hamas when he applied for permanent residency. When he came to the United States 10 years earlier, he claimed he had never been arrested or belonged to any terrorist groups. That history makes Qatanani subject to deportation, DHS says.

Tuesday's hearing centered on Qatanani's October 1993 arrest and conviction by an Israeli military court on charges he provided support to Hamas. He claims Israeli authorities detained him and never charged him.

"No lawyer prior to 2008 ever told me that I had a conviction," Qatanani said.

U.S. Immigration Judge Judge Alberto Reifkohl ruled in 2008 that the bulk of the evidence and testimony introduced by the Department of Homeland Security was not credible and granted Qatanani permanent residency, better known as a "green card."

The Justice Department's Board of Immigration Appeals sent the case back to Reifkohl in October 2009, finding that he erred rejecting the credibility of evidence and government testimony. In addition, DHS attorneys bolstered some of the evidence obtained from Israeli officials, including two confessions which include statements Qatanani made about his Hamas connection. Three additional witness statements came from people who told Israeli officials that Qatanani recruited them to join Hamas. Qatanani claims he never was given translations of the Hebrew-language Israeli court records and never knew what they alleged. "There is no confession to my understanding" Qatanani said Tuesday.

He also disputed that the signatures on the documents were his, saying instead they were "similar" to his signature. DHS evidence was able to match the fingerprints on the documents to Qatanani.

He claims he was mistreated in Israeli custody, but never signed any documents he thought were confessions, describing them as "finishing papers."The legal standard in immigration court is less stringent than a criminal conviction. This means DHS only needs to show that Qatanani had associations with Hamas that he hid on his visa application. Under immigration law, the Qatanani has the burden of proof to show he is not a terrorist, said Department of Homeland Security Deputy Chief Counsel Chris Brundage.

It's impossible for Qatanani to get around the fact he lied when he said he never had been arrested, Brundage said.

No ruling was issued before the hearing recessed. It is scheduled to resume next month.

It Will Take More Than a Wall to Solve Border CrimeSecurity WeeklyDecember 1, 2016 | 08:05 GMT PrintText SizeA view of Nogales from the American side of the U.S.-Mexico border. If walls were an effective way to halt the cross-border movement of contraband, cartels would not bother to expend so much blood and treasure to capture cities like Nogales. (FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images)

By Scott Stewart

Nearly a month has passed since U.S. voters chose their next president, and over the past few weeks it has become a little clearer how the policies of President Donald Trump will differ from the promises of candidate Trump. As we have seen since January 2009, when newly elected President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaign pledges of change and hope, reality has a way of constraining a leader's ability to effect real change. More often than not, the policies that presidents put into practice look very different from the ideas they put forth on the campaign trail.

The same will probably be true of Trump's vow to seal the U.S.-Mexico border by building a wall. One of the biggest problems with this proposal is that the flow of illegal immigrants and contraband between the two countries is not a simple matter of physical security, international relations, or customs and immigration law. Rather, the cross-border movement of goods and people is driven by formidable economic forces that are powerful enough to overwhelm any barrier — just as they have with walls built for the same purpose in the past.

Digging Into the Economics

Anyone who knows me or has read my columns is aware that I love to analyze criminal and terrorist tactics. As a former special agent who spent years investigating bombings, crime and fraud, those subjects get my blood pumping much faster than talk of politics and economics. (Needless to say, I wasn't at all excited when I was forced to take economics in high school and college.) That said, the more I study criminal trends, the more I see the principles of economics at work.

No matter what kind of barrier the U.S. government tries to build along its border with Mexico, it will be impossible to stop the flow of drugs and people north (or the flow of guns and money south) so long as there is money to be made in the process. A kilo of methamphetamine, for example, might cost $300-$500 to synthesize in Mexico but sell for $20,000 in the United States. By the same token, guns purchased legally in the United States can be sold for three to five times that in Mexico. Those are profit margins any businessman would envy.

As we've seen over the past few decades, border barriers can redirect the illicit flow of people or goods, but they cannot stop it. Driven by the prospect of striking it rich, smugglers have come up with any number of creative means to go over, under or through walls. They are constantly coming up with new ways to hide contraband in commercial cargo shipments, personal vehicles or people's bodies. In fact, far more drugs cross the U.S.-Mexico border through official checkpoints than are smuggled through the empty expanses of desert on either side — especially when it comes to high-value drugs such as methamphetamine, cocaine and heroin.

This is why Mexican drug cartels spend so much effort fighting for control of walled border-crossing cities (referred to as "plazas" in Spanish). Massive amounts of illegal trade pass through these towns, and the organizations that control them can collect a tax (or "piso") on the smuggling activities taking place there. If walls were truly an effective way to halt the movement of contraband at the border, cartels would never bother to expend the blood and treasure needed to capture and hold cities such as Nuevo Laredo, Reynosa, Juarez and Tijuana — all of which have had walls running through them for decades.

One of the biggest gaps smugglers have discovered in border security is people. The U.S.-Mexico border is the most heavily trafficked land border in the world: Some 6 million cars, 440,000 trucks and 3.3 million pedestrians move northward across it every month. These volumes skyrocket when you add in the goods and people traveling between the two countries by train, bus, air and sea. And all of these individuals present transit opportunities for smugglers.

Nevertheless, barriers have become more effective (and screening equipment more sophisticated) in recent years, making it more difficult to illegally sneak people or goods through checkpoints. As a result, the number of corruption cases involving border inspection and law enforcement officials has spiked, and corruption has seeped through every layer of local, state and federal government. In some places, it is simply cheaper and easier for smugglers to pay an inspector to look the other way as a shipment of drugs passes through an inspection lane than it is to dig a tunnel or find some other means of bypassing it. Similarly, as it has become harder to legally cross the border, the level of interest in obtaining legitimate border crossing cards, visas and passports from corrupt authorities has risen.

Another Brick in the Wall

Fences have existed along some parts of the U.S.-Mexico border for decades. In the early 1990s, Washington began to construct more substantial barriers in urban areas, many of which were made with surplus metal runway mats (known as perforated steel planking) from the Vietnam War. More sophisticated fencing techniques did not appear until 1995, when Sandia National Laboratories created a barrier three layers deep that was designed to slow intruders until border patrol agents could respond to the breach. In this scheme, the layer closest to the foreign country is a thick metal wall, separated from the middle layer — a metal mesh fence — by a well-lit open area blanketed with technological surveillance, including cameras, thermal imaging and an array of sensors.

Then, in areas most prone to heavy traffic, a low fence forms the third and innermost layer.

In 2006, the Secure Fence Act sought to extend existing fences along the border. Yet even with the additions, there are still gaps that are hundreds of kilometers long in the nearly 3,200-kilometer (2,000-mile) border. Lawmakers have repeatedly proposed measures that would fund fence-building in these areas, but none have been approved because of the serious doubts that remain on fences' effectiveness in deterring illegal border crossings. According to The Washington Post, the Department of Homeland Security spent $3.4 billion and completed 1,030 of the 1,050 kilometers of fencing and vehicle barriers called for by the Secure Border Initiative before it was shuttered. Filling in the rest of the border (with the exception of a 322-kilometer stretch of land in southwest Texas) is estimated to cost somewhere between $7 billion and $10 billion. But despite the money spent on the Secure Border Initiative, there has been no discernable drop in the flow of narcotics into the United States, based on their steady prices on the street.

The Buck Stops Here

The bottom line is that until Americans stop paying premium dollars for drugs being transported through or manufactured in Mexico, it simply won't be possible to keep them from entering the country. When I talk to U.S. or Mexican politicians and law enforcement agents, they are well aware of this fact and understand that they are fighting an unwinnable war. Nevertheless, they feel compelled to keep trying to stem the drug trade as best they can.

If government authorities could quash the demand for drugs, Mexican cartels would implode. They would continue to be groups of criminals, but they would be criminals with far fewer resources. Smuggling plazas would no longer be worth fighting bloody battles for, and they would not need to worry about getting cash across the border in bulk. Moreover, cartels would not have the money to pay top dollar for U.S. guns, or to buy off government officials on both sides of the border.

Unfortunately, reducing demand for narcotics is easier said than done. Drug addiction is a serious social, moral, public health and mental health issue to which there is no simple solution. We cannot just arrest our way out of the problem, either: People will continue to spend exorbitant amounts of money on illegal drugs, regardless of the risk of imprisonment. And as long as the demand for drugs exists, the lure of massive profits will continue to push smugglers to find new ways to circumvent border security.

The same is largely true for illegal immigration. It is clear that the improving health of the Mexican economy has done more to reduce the flood of job seekers heading to the United States than stricter border controls have. That said, Venezuela and Central America's northern triangle are still suffering from steep crime and bleak economies. If Americans are willing to hire workers who are here without documentation, laborers will find ways to come to the United States.

Clamping down on demand for illegal labor is a little easier than eliminating the need for drugs. In fact, all it takes is the strict enforcement of laws prohibiting the employment of undocumented workers. So, if the U.S. government is serious about halting illegal immigration, it could put more effort into arresting and fining the U.S. citizens who hire illegal immigrants rather than the immigrants themselves, drying up the demand that is drawing job-seekers in droves. The fines collected from these cases could even be used to build the rest of the border wall. This approach, however, would be deeply unpopular with construction and landscaping firms, poultry processors and other powerful agriculture groups, which is why these laws are not tightly enforced now. That U.S. companies in these sectors employ undocumented workers is a poorly kept secret, and immigration authorities know which ones are guilty of doing so. But any attempt to slap these firms and their leaders with fines or criminal charges would probably amount to political suicide, as would fining people who hire illegal immigrants as gardeners, nannies or maids. Cracking down on these practices could also damage certain U.S. industries, making it a strategy unlikely to be implemented anytime soon.

Of course, even if demand for illegal labor were significantly slashed, criminal aliens — those who migrate to the United States to commit crimes instead of finding work — would not be directly affected. Even so, if the total number of undocumented aliens greatly declines, more law enforcement resources could be funneled toward countering criminal aliens and more sinister threats such as terrorist operatives, rather than be spent chasing day laborers.

With no surefire way to decrease demand for drugs and no politically feasible method of reducing demand for undocumented labor, border security will continue to be punted from one administration to the next.